James Toney; Most overrated fighter of the 90's?

[billeau2]

Peter did beat him easily the second time. The first one was closer but he lost both.

Me saying Holyfield wasn't past it? Is that even up for debate that he was past it?

Yes I know a lot of people think Toney won the first one, I've said that. A lot of people also had McCallum winning. A lot of people had it a draw like myself. A draw was the fairest result

I don't see where you're going with this, what am I saying that isn't true?

Good question as I was not clear....My point is that to be fair you cannot:

a) give toney the benefitt of every doubt...something that you wont do in your position obviously but someone could do in favor of Toney. So...for example saying in all cases, Toney beat MCcallum both times, he was drained for the Jones fight, He won both Peter fights, beat a decent version of Holly, etc etc etc...Realistically probably some of these situations are true. But even the most fervent Toney fan would have to see that affording Toney the benefit of all these debatable outcomes is unrealistic.

b) assume that in any instance where it is debatable that Tony prevailed in a match, that Toney lost or was lacking. so maybe in your argument 3/4 of the time, in the close fights judged, you are correct, but somewhere in all these debatable fight results, Toney probably deserves some benefitt of the doubt Dan.

Its just not logical to assume in any situation where one has to make a judgement about close fights, etc that one fighter is always wrong. it gives the appearance that one has an agenda and is not rationally judging the outcome of a fighter's experience in the ring.

I don't want to single anyone out here but there are people that are otherwise seemingly rational posters who will, in essence, explain away every victory of a fighter they do not like. it becomes preposterous. Thats my point.

[Combat Talk Radio]

Did James Toney ever have an impressive dominant performance over a top opponent in his career? The only two I think that could arguably qualify are Iran Barkley and Vassily Jirov.

Here's the problem I see. Define "dominant".

I don't define "dominant" as "you didn't get hit at all and you were schooling your opponent" only - ala Mayweather/Gatti. Not just that.

I also define "dominant" as "stylistically your opponent had no chance of beating you" - ala Mayweather/Pacquiao, Holyfield/Holmes, Taylor/Chavez ( I know what the history books said), Barrera/Hamed, Mayweather/Corrales, etc.

By that definition, I would put his absolute schooling of Iran Barkley first on the list ("Right hand over the top right thea" -- Roy Jones), followed by Toney's comeback against Holyfield (who yes, was getting up there in age).

I would not have the Jirov fight on there because in my eyes it wasn't that "dominant". It was actually quite boring to me.

Would I put Toney up there in the ATGs? Yes, because his resume speaks for itself. He stayed busy and fought hard almost every fight until he got lazy. He was entertaining to watch and listen to until he started slurring, and he's the first boxer to have the nuts to step into the octagon. He deserves that respect.

[billeau2]

Anyway, like many fighters he can be a little overrated by some. I don't think there is a consensus on this one and I certainly don't think he's the most overrated of that entire decade. I think people rave about him because of some of his brilliant individual skills, but I don't think I've ever seen him rated that highly as an ATG. He seems to be consistently rated as a lower 50-100 type ATG mostly because of the exact things you mention. Seems about right to me.

But surely you need some consistency in rating fighters IDH? I've seen you say Froch is the greatest SMW of all time with the best resume etc. Well, he's had losses and shady wins/poor performances like Toney, except without the skill Toney shows and a much lesser resume. Surely if you think Toney is unimpressive and the most overrated fighter of an entire decade, you'd have to think similarly of Froch? However, you think the exact opposite and go to the other extreme saying he's the best SMW ever!

The performances thing makes no sense. I doubt you think of Froch as the most overrated 168er of this era and arguably of all time based on his performances in fights alone right?

If we followed your logic of going by performances and shaky wins etc, then you yourself must think Froch is clearly the most overrated 168er of this era and maybe the most overrated in boxing's 168 history if you hold any consistency in rating fighters.

Like Toney he was beaten by the best fighter he faced easily in Ward and also the second best in an ageing Kessler. He had 'unimpressive/poor' (your words for close, albeit winning, fights) performances against Dirrell, an unimpressive come from behind win that he looked terrible, was dropped etc against a never that good Taylor (much worse than struggling against Nunn), nearly stopped against a never was Groves, had a close fight against Pascal, looked lacklustre against Johnson etc etc.

That's a lot of unimpressive performances for someone you call the greatest SMW ever against some very unspectacular opposition. His best wins, Kessler and Bute, were another close (read poor) fight against an ageing fighter that he'd already lost to and what most now consider a highly overrated Bute.

You've certainly never called Forch overrated. The extreme opposite in fact. Surely there should be some attempt at consistency?

Anyway, just some food for thought.

I guess that is what confused me...I have always thought that people saw it the way Bennie states regarding toney.

I also always thought that MCcallum was sort of like when foodies graduate to eating pork belly and rave about it...even though they may have tried it once, and would never order sweetbreads, or beef cheeks, but found something nice and relatively approachable and exotic to impress with, while still basically "going to" steak, fish or chicken most of the time. Experience as a chef per the example But among the people who are chefs, vis a vis unpretentious knowledgable fight fans, I always thought MCcallum was thought of basically on a similar general level, in terms of status, when compared to Toney.

[LacedUp]

I would say yes. Most definitely on Forums.

What would you say?

Hmm.. I wouldn't say so no.

Whilst obviously gifted and could put on out-of-this-world displays, it was usually against lower opposition. Whilst he does have A level wins in Nunn and McCallum, that's where it stops. He does have 90 fights or something like that but usually against pretty average opposition. He never fought top guy after top guy and after the early 90s I struggle to find a dominating performance against a top level fighter.

Not that he dominated Nunn or McCallum or Johnson by any stretch of the imagination, but looking at the level of those guys and the level they were at you can't blame him for that.

I also have to cite poor performances against guys like Tiberi which in reality he should probably have lost.

HOF? Yes definitely. ATG? No. Not for my money.

[Humean]

Toney's best wins are very impressive, McCallum, Nunn and Johnson. On the other hand I can't think of many modern fighters who people fail to rank a fighter down for because of his poor performances as Toney, as if being an unprofessional fat **** is a legitimate excuse. A hell of a fighter at his best though.

[Suckmedry]

Valid points but Froch does have dominant performances though against some top fighters.

I'll admit that Froch IS overrated by some most definitely. I actually have Ward #1, changed my mind.

But that's solely because 168 is so weak and a reasonably new division.

In regard to Froch, he's not an ATG and far from it. Infact he's a boarder line HOF'er IMO.

If someone were to claim he was an ATG I'd certainly call him overrated also.

For the record I rank Toney over Froch but at 168 I would probably pick Froch to win a SD type fight.

And surely if performances don't matter and it's just "wins" then Froch is highly rated?

You think froch would beat Toney at 168? make way sonny boy and elroy. The history forum has a new resident jackass

That would literally be one of the most one sided fights ever. Froch would get dissected by Toney and probably stopped late.

[IronDanHamza]

You think froch would beat Toney at 168? make way sonny boy and elroy. The history forum has a new resident jackass

That would literally be one of the most one sided fights ever. Froch would get dissected by Toney and probably stopped late.

That's your opinion you're entitled to it.

Considering that James Toney couldn't do that to barely anyone he fought I highly doubt he'd do it to Froch.

I'd expect Toney to have an early lead but down the stretch Froch would take rounds when Toney fades, plus I think Froch's jab would land, and he'd outwork him in spots.

Toney was clearly beaten by Dave Tiberi and Drake Thadzi so it's not crazy to think Froch has a shot. I did say a SD type decision aswell.

Another example of Toney being overrated IMO, you say Toneh-Froch would be "one of the most one sided fights ever" and not only would dissect him but stop him late (extremely doubtful) yet when did Toney ever do that to someone on Froch's level? Never. He struggled and lost to fighters much worse than Carl Froch yet you think it would be a wipe out.

Precisely my point.

[IronDanHamza]

Toney's best wins are very impressive, McCallum, Nunn and Johnson. On the other hand I can't think of many modern fighters who people fail to rank a fighter down for because of his poor performances as Toney, as if being an unprofessional fat **** is a legitimate excuse. A hell of a fighter at his best though.

Was interested in your view.

How did you score Toney-Johnson. I really thought Toney was far from impressive in that one I thought Johnson made him look really bad.

How did you score McCallum 2?

As for Nunn yeah I'll agree very impressive to turn it round but he looked so bad for the first half though.

Your second sentance is the point I was trying to make in a nutshell.

[IronDanHamza]

Hmm.. I wouldn't say so no.

Whilst obviously gifted and could put on out-of-this-world displays, it was usually against lower opposition. Whilst he does have A level wins in Nunn and McCallum, that's where it stops. He does have 90 fights or something like that but usually against pretty average opposition. He never fought top guy after top guy and after the early 90s I struggle to find a dominating performance against a top level fighter.

Not that he dominated Nunn or McCallum or Johnson by any stretch of the imagination, but looking at the level of those guys and the level they were at you can't blame him for that.

I also have to cite poor performances against guys like Tiberi which in reality he should probably have lost.

HOF? Yes definitely. ATG? No. Not for my money.

I agree with you but I don't think we are in the majority. You're the only person except myself in this thread that says he isn't an ATG (those who've shared their opinion on it)

I mean take this as an example, in Sonny's "would Toney be a champion in the 80's" thread the forum clown Last Round Doe said I "literally know nothing about boxing" because I said I'd pick Spinks, Muammad and Qawi to beat Toney at 175. As if that's some outlandish idea that Toney could lose those fights.

What I don't understand with James Toney fans is why they pretend that he didn't struggle and lose to mediocre and even poor opponents. This actually happened a number of times yet it's as if they pretend it's not true.

Toney seems to dominate every fantasy fight he had. Shame he struggled to do that in actual fights.

[Anthony342]

Hmm.. I wouldn't say so no.

Whilst obviously gifted and could put on out-of-this-world displays, it was usually against lower opposition. Whilst he does have A level wins in Nunn and McCallum, that's where it stops. He does have 90 fights or something like that but usually against pretty average opposition. He never fought top guy after top guy and after the early 90s I struggle to find a dominating performance against a top level fighter.

Not that he dominated Nunn or McCallum or Johnson by any stretch of the imagination, but looking at the level of those guys and the level they were at you can't blame him for that.

I also have to cite poor performances against guys like Tiberi which in reality he should probably have lost.

HOF? Yes definitely. ATG? No. Not for my money.

Yes, agreed. This right here. And that's pretty much the point of the topic here.

HOF yes, ATG no, I agree.